First portraits with Rolleiflex 2.8E (and some insights on scanning)

[wintershrooms]

Just wanted to post my experience with my new-to-me Rolleiflex 2.8E and (more importantly) some scanning insights that I've gleaned from working with this first set of portraits I've captured.

I bought the Rolleiflex 2.8E that was in the RFF classifieds a few weeks ago, and I've finally gotten to take some portraits with it. After playing around a bit, I've figured out a hybrid analog/digital workflow that functions well for my mostly web-based needs. Eventually I'd love to set up my own darkroom to print, but in the meantime this will have to do.







For these shots, I used Ilford HP5+ 400 shot at ASA 400. I metered using my iPhone 4 Lightmeter app, all three of these shots came out to 1/60 sec at f/2.8. I developed the film according to the Massive Dev Chart data for HC-110 B and adjusted for the temperature coming out of my bathroom sink tap: 6 min 15 sec @ 18 deg C. Fixed, washed, squeegeed, and hung.

Then I set about scanning. Here's where things got tricky. I tried what I normally do for both 35mm and 120 black and white film: Put the negatives in holders and scan as monochrome negative using my CanoScan 9950f and Canon ScanGear software at 1200 dp, then play around with the scans in Lightroom 3 a little.

But when I tried the above method, I got atrocious scans, but when I looked at the negatives themselves with my naked eye, they looked much nicer, tonally, than what I was getting from my typical scanning technique.

So after some RFF and Flickr research, I decided to try a completely new technique. I'm providing it here for anyone else who has issues with negative scanning and wants to attempt a different method:

Scan at 2400 dpi as monochrome *positive* in ScanGear CS with no scanner processing selected (i.e., no auto tone, no unsharp mask, no grain reduction, and so on).

Take the monochrome positive file into Photoshop CS5. Invert. Then play around with curves with some minor burning and dodging to fine-tune tones. Fix any crop issues (to get 1x1 aspect ratio). Flatten image to one layer. Unsharp mask to taste.

And that's how I handled the photos above. Here is a growing set of my portraits with this camera and workflow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wintershrooms/sets/72157625701068789.

I would love to hear how other people scan their negatives. I'd also welcome any suggestions on favorite films in 120 black and white, and any particular developers you like to use. Can't wait to experiment a little more with my new Rolleiflex! 🙂

 

[mfogiel]

You normally should not need to scan as positive, unless the film is overdeveloped, or unless you include completely clear base in the frame when you scan. As a first hint, I'd lower the HC 110 dilution and extend the time for better control, and also I'd avoid the squeege, which will scratch your best negatives when you don't want it. Using demineralized water for diluting the developer and for the last rinse ( with photo flo) might also keep the results more constant over time, and the negatives cleaner. The rest of the proces seems normal to me, apart the low resolution of the scan, which will not permit big prints.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I scan the same way, using a Nikon LS-8000 and Vuescan software. I scan as a positive, invert, use curves layers to fix tonality (negs scan VERY flat in the Nikon when scanned as positives), dodge and burn with more curves, then save layered file as a master file and also save a flat version as a working file to print from and to make a smaller web-size copy from.

I like Tmax 100 as a general purpose 120 film for landscapes and architecture.

Tmax 400 is my portrait film

Delta 3200 for lowlight portraits.

I like Fuji Acros 100 as a film for dark interiors because it has virtually no reciprocity failure, even with exposures up to 5 minutes!

 

[Mablo]

Nice portraits. I would clean those dust spots but that's just me.

I scan my MF B&W negs as 16bit monochrome .tiff files, 1200 dpi, with my Canon 8800f and get quite good results. You need to scan through Photoshop to get the 16bit option. Install a TWAIN driver for your scanner and use "File" - "Import" command in PS.

I've tried scanning as positive but results were not better. Hmm... maybe I should try again to be sure. Though 2400 dpi sounds like too large files for my puny scanner+PS computer.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Nice portraits. I would clean those dust spots but that's just me.

I scan my MF B&W negs as 16bit monochrome .tiff files, 1200 dpi, with my Canon 8800f and get quite good results. You need to scan through Photoshop to get the 16bit option. Install a TWAIN driver for your scanner and use "File" - "Import" command in PS.

I've tried scanning as positive but results were not better. Hmm... maybe I should try again to be sure. Though 2400 dpi sounds like too large files for my puny scanner+PS computer.

Scanning as a positive may not make a difference with your scanner and software. Some clip the light and/or dark tones when scanning as a neg, and scanning as a positive prevents that. That's why I do it. If your scanner doesn't have that issue, you're better off scanning as a neg and saving the bother of inverting.

 

[af_]

I scan my MF B&W negs as 16bit monochrome .tiff files, 1200 dpi, with my Canon 8800f and get quite good results. You need to scan through Photoshop to get the 16bit option. Install a TWAIN driver for your scanner and use "File" - "Import" command in PS.

Do you actually see any difference between the 8bit and 16bit scans?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Do you actually see any difference between the 8bit and 16bit scans?

Yes, absolutely. Most neg scans are too flat and need contrast increased in Photoshop. As soon as you start messing with curves on an 8 but file, it begins to fall apart tonally. I have a student that pays me to teach her Photoshop and she brought some scans from a Nikon LS-5000. As usual with that scanner, they looked flat, so I had her increase contrast and when we got the contrast looking good, the sky was posterized and blotchy. The penalty for scanning in 8bit.

It shouldn't even be an option to scan in 8 bit when scanning film, and there's no excuse for not scanning in 16 bit. It doesn't take longer and doesn't cost anything but some disk space, and hell hard drives are SO cheap now.

 

[af_]

Thanks for the explanation, Christopher.